Sceptical India: caste

Showing posts with label caste. Show all posts

Sunday, May 25, 2025

The Caste-Based Reservation Debate: A Misunderstood Reality

In India, few topics ignite as much public passion as caste-based reservation. For some, it is a necessary corrective to centuries of discrimination. For others, it’s perceived as an unfair advantage. But what if much of the public debate is centered on a numerical illusion?

Contrary to widespread belief, caste-based reservation accounts for less than 2% of all jobs in India. This isn’t an opinion — it’s a hard number based on publicly available data.

Breaking Down the Numbers

Let’s start with the facts:

Total workforce in India (FY 2023–24): ~643 million people.
[Source: Reserve Bank of India, CMIE]
Public-sector employment: Only about 3.8% of India’s jobs are in the public sector (including central/state government, PSUs, etc.).
→ 643 million × 3.8% = ~24.4 million public-sector jobs
Reservation coverage:
Under central rules, 49.5% of government jobs are reserved:
SC (15%)
ST (7.5%)
OBC (27%)
→ 49.5% of 24.4 million = ~12.1 million reserved jobs
Total reservation share in all jobs:
12.1 million ÷ 643 million = ~1.9%

Yes, that’s it. Just 1.9% of all jobs in India are covered by caste-based reservation policies.

What About the Private Sector?

This number is so low because over 90% of India’s jobs are in the private and informal sectors, where caste-based reservation does not apply.

Despite calls from various political parties and social justice activists, no pan-India law mandates reservation in private companies. A few states like Maharashtra have experimented with it, but enforcement is patchy, and many such laws are stuck in legal limbo.

Why This Is So Worrying

Policy vs. Perception Disconnect
Walk into any WhatsApp group, college debate, or comment section, and you’ll hear that “reservation is everywhere” or that “merit is being destroyed.” But this data proves otherwise. The entire narrative rests on just 1.9% of all jobs.
Misplaced Anger
Many upper-caste youth who struggle in competitive exams often channel frustration toward caste-based quotas, even though most of their job prospects lie in the unreserved private sector. The real bottleneck isn’t reservation — it’s a broken job market, low economic growth, and lack of opportunities.
Blind Spot in Social Justice
On the other side, those who believe that reservation has “uplifted” entire communities must also acknowledge that its reach is extremely limited. The vast majority of Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs are still stuck in informal jobs with no protections — let alone reservations.
Myth of Overrepresentation
There’s a recurring narrative that reserved groups are now overrepresented in bureaucracy or government. But data shows that SCs, STs, and OBCs are still underrepresented in higher government posts, courts, academia, and corporate leadership.

Why It Matters

We are debating less than 2% of the job pie while ignoring the 98% that’s unregulated, exclusionary, and caste-stratified in more subtle ways.

This massive disconnect leads to:

Divisive politics that weaponize identity.
Young people blaming the wrong system for their unemployment.
Neglect of real affirmative action reforms for the private sector.
Little to no pressure to create better universal job policy.

The Way Forward

We need to realign the conversation:

Acknowledge the data: Understand where reservation applies — and where it doesn’t.
Demand broader equity: Instead of fighting over the 1.9%, demand transparency, diversity, and opportunity in the remaining 98%.
Reframe the narrative: Stop treating reservation as a dominant force. Start recognizing it as a narrow tool trying to correct a vast historical imbalance.

Conclusion

The idea that caste-based reservation dominates India’s job market is a myth — and a dangerous one at that. By obsessing over a policy that affects just a sliver of the workforce, we ignore the real structural crises: job scarcity, inequality, and private-sector exclusion.

If we want a fairer India, we must move beyond rhetoric — and start looking at the numbers. Because right now, the perception is wildly out of sync with reality.

The Selective Lens of Hindu Nationalism: Ignoring Dalit Oppression in Historical Narratives

Hindu nationalism in India often constructs its identity around a selective reading of history, emphasizing perceived injustices inflicted by Muslim rulers while sidelining the deep-rooted and millennia-long oppression of Dalits within Hindu society. This selective historical narrative serves a political purpose but distorts the broader reality of India’s social history, particularly the systemic discrimination faced by Dalits under caste hierarchies that predate and outlast any external rule. By focusing almost exclusively on Hindu-Muslim conflicts, Hindu nationalists conveniently evade accountability for the internal structural violence perpetuated by upper-caste Hindus against Dalits, a practice that has persisted for over two millennia.

The Hindu Nationalist Historical Narrative

Hindu nationalism, as propagated by organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates, often portrays Indian history as a saga of Hindu victimhood under Muslim rule, particularly during the Mughal era. This narrative highlights events like temple destructions or forced conversions, framing Muslims as perpetual aggressors against a monolithic Hindu identity. While historical instances of conflict between Hindu and Muslim rulers are undeniable, this framing deliberately oversimplifies India’s complex past, ignoring the diversity of Hindu society and its internal hierarchies.

What is conspicuously absent from this narrative is any acknowledgment of the caste system’s role in oppressing millions of Dalits, who were relegated to the margins of society long before the arrival of Muslim rulers. By fixating on external “invaders,” Hindu nationalists deflect attention from the internal systemic injustices that have defined Hindu social order for centuries.

The Millennia-Long Oppression of Dalits

The caste system, deeply embedded in Hindu social and religious practices, has systematically marginalized Dalits (formerly referred to as “untouchables”) for over two thousand years. Ancient texts like the Manusmriti codified discriminatory practices, prescribing harsh punishments for lower castes who dared to transgress their assigned roles. Dalits were deemed impure, their touch or even shadow considered polluting by upper-caste Hindus. These beliefs were not isolated but institutionalized, shaping social interactions, economic opportunities, and religious access.

Historical accounts, such as those by the Chinese traveler Faxian (Fa-Hsien) during the Gupta period (4th–6th century CE), describe the plight of the Chandalas, a lower-caste group forced to live outside villages and announce their presence to avoid “polluting” others. This is not a relic of the distant past; discriminatory practices persisted into the modern era. Dalits were barred from temples, forbidden from drawing water from village wells, and subjected to humiliating customs like the “breast tax” in parts of South India, where lower-caste women were forced to pay to cover their bodies. These practices were not imposed by Muslim rulers but were enforced by upper-caste Hindus, who held social and religious authority.

Even today, the legacy of caste oppression endures. Manual scavenging, a dehumanizing practice where individuals (overwhelmingly Dalits) clean human waste from dry latrines, remains a stark reminder of caste-based exploitation. Despite legal bans, reports estimate that over 1.3 million Dalits are still engaged in this work, facing social stigma and health risks. Hindu nationalist discourse rarely addresses these modern injustices, focusing instead on historical grievances against Muslims or contemporary issues like “love jihad.”

Why Hindu Nationalists Avoid the Dalit Question

The reluctance of Hindu nationalists to confront caste oppression stems from both ideological and strategic considerations. Ideologically, their vision of a unified Hindu identity requires downplaying internal divisions like caste, which fracture the notion of a cohesive “Hindu nation.” Acknowledging the historical and ongoing oppression of Dalits would force a reckoning with the role of upper-caste Hindus in perpetuating this system, undermining the narrative of Hindu victimhood.

Strategically, Hindu nationalism relies on mobilizing a broad Hindu voter base, including Dalits, to counter perceived threats from minorities. Admitting the historical guilt of upper-caste oppression risks alienating Dalit communities, who have increasingly asserted their rights through movements inspired by leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Instead, Hindu nationalist rhetoric often co-opts Dalit identity, portraying them as part of the Hindu fold while ignoring their specific grievances. This tokenism is evident in the selective celebration of Ambedkar as a Hindu icon, while his critiques of caste and Hinduism are conveniently ignored.

The Consequences of Selective History

This selective reading of history has profound implications. By focusing on Muslim oppression while ignoring caste-based atrocities, Hindu nationalists perpetuate a distorted understanding of India’s past that fuels communal tensions. This narrative not only marginalizes Dalits but also erases the contributions of lower-caste reformers who fought against caste oppression, from Jyotirao Phule to Periyar.

Moreover, it distracts from addressing contemporary issues like manual scavenging, caste-based violence, and discrimination in education and employment. According to a 2020 report by the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, over 40% of Dalit households in rural India still face untouchability practices, such as being denied access to public spaces or services. These are not relics of a distant past but ongoing realities that Hindu nationalist discourse sidesteps.

Toward a More Honest Historical Reckoning

A balanced understanding of Indian history requires acknowledging both external conflicts and internal injustices. The oppression of Dalits is not a peripheral issue but a central feature of India’s social history, one that predates and outlasts Muslim rule. Hindu nationalists must confront the uncomfortable truth that upper-caste Hindus were complicit in a system that dehumanized millions for millennia. Only by addressing this can India move toward a more inclusive national identity that honors all its citizens.

This is not to diminish the complexities of Hindu-Muslim relations or the historical realities of invasions and conquests. But a singular focus on one form of oppression while ignoring another is not just selective — it’s dishonest. True nationalism should uplift the marginalized, not erase their suffering. Until Hindu nationalists engage with the full spectrum of India’s history, including the painful legacy of caste, their vision of a unified nation will remain incomplete.

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

The Hidden Inequality in India's Reservation System: Why OBCs Face the Toughest Competition

India's reservation system is often painted in binaries: reserved vs. unreserved, merit vs. quota. But the true picture is far more complex—and far more unfair to the very communities reservations are meant to uplift.

Recent data from the Karnataka caste survey—the most detailed since the 1931 British census—reveals something shocking: the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), despite being the largest social group, are vastly underrepresented in the actual seats reserved for them.

🔍 The Numbers: What the Karnataka Caste Survey Revealed

The Socio-Economic and Educational Survey (2015), submitted in 2023 by the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes, estimated the population composition of the state as:

This means OBCs alone form the overwhelming majority of Karnataka’s population.

🎯 But What About Seat Allocation?

Let’s look at how government jobs and education seats are allocated in Karnataka:

The Real Shock: Seat-to-Population Ratio

By comparing each group's share of seats with their share of population, we get the seat-per-capita ratio—a clear indicator of how much competition a member of that category faces.

This means:

General category candidates have almost 7× more seats per capita than their population share. Their competition is the lowest.
OBCs, despite being the largest group, have less than half the seats they proportionally deserve.
SC/ST categories, while historically disadvantaged, now receive seats roughly in proportion to their population.

🧠 What Does This Really Mean?

It means OBCs are fighting for crumbs on their own table. A student or job aspirant from an OBC background faces nearly double the competition as an SC/ST counterpart—and more than 13× the competition faced by someone from an unreserved (General) caste.

And yet, public discourse often portrays OBCs as having an “easy ride” due to reservations. The numbers say otherwise.

❓ Why Is This Happening?

Cap on total reservation: The Supreme Court has historically capped reservations at 50% (though Karnataka exceeds this), meaning even large groups like OBCs can’t get proportional seats.
No proportional quotas: Reservations aren’t based on current caste population data (except in Tamil Nadu and now Bihar).
General category advantages: The General category, which includes dominant castes, ends up with a disproportionate share despite being numerically tiny.

🔁 What Needs to Change?

Make caste census data public across India
Base reservation percentages on actual population share
Sub-categorize OBCs so that dominant OBCs don’t crowd out marginalized ones
Include seat-to-population ratio in policy-making

⚖️ Final Thought

The reservation debate often turns emotional, but data helps us see clearly. And the data is unambiguous:

The biggest victims of India’s flawed reservation system are often those it claims to empower: the OBCs.

It’s time to recalibrate the system—not against one group, but in favor of justice, logic, and equality.

The Hidden Inequity in Reservation: Why Bihar’s Backward Classes Face the Toughest Competition

In a country where debates around reservation policies are often politically charged and emotionally sensitive, hard data can be the clearest guide. A close look at Bihar’s recently released caste survey and its 2023 reservation policy reveals something surprising, even counterintuitive: despite receiving the largest share of reservation, Backward Classes (OBC + EBC) in Bihar are actually the most disadvantaged when it comes to per capita access to seats in jobs and education.

Meanwhile, General category, Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST)—despite having fewer total reserved seats—actually face less competition per seat within their respective categories.

This article breaks down the numbers to explain how and why this happens.

This data shows that nearly two-thirds of Bihar’s population falls under the OBC/EBC umbrella, forming the majority.

🪑 Reservation Breakdown (Bihar, 2023)

In November 2023, Bihar passed a landmark law increasing total reservation to 75% in public employment and education.

This means General (unreserved) category students are competing for just 25% of total seats—yet that’s still more per capita access than any other group.

🧮 Let’s Do the Math: Seats per Person

To understand which category is most competitive within itself, we compare each group’s percentage of population to the percentage of seats available to it.

🎯 Interpretation:

A ratio > 1 means more seats per capita than your population share (easier competition).
A ratio < 1 means fewer seats per capita than your population share (harder competition).

So, despite having the largest share of reservation, the Backward Classes collectively face the toughest odds simply because they have to share it with a huge chunk of the population.

🧠 Why This Feels Counterintuitive

The public narrative often assumes that reserved seats automatically mean advantage—but this ignores how many people are competing for those reserved seats.

A General category candidate might be competing for fewer seats overall, but they’re also part of a much smaller population group (15.52%). Meanwhile, a BC candidate is fighting for more seats (43%) but against more than 4 times the number of people (63.14%).

⚖️ A Broken Equity?

This leads us to a simple but overlooked conclusion: seat distribution does not automatically mean equity unless it’s proportional to population. While Bihar has gone further than most states in trying to align reservation with caste numbers, the most populous category—Backward Classes—still ends up short.

Unless the seat-to-population ratios are brought into balance, meritorious candidates from backward groups will continue to be under more pressure to outperform their peers, even within the quota system.

🛠️ What Could Be Done?

Subcategorization of OBC/EBC: Breaking them into more granular quotas, as suggested by several commissions, could balance internal disparities.
Dynamic seat allocation: Using a model that adjusts seat percentages based on real-time population and demand data.
Horizontal reservations within OBC/EBC to ensure representation of the most marginalized (e.g., Muslim OBCs, Most Backward Castes).

📌 Final Thoughts

This data-driven view forces us to rethink assumptions about reservation and merit. Equity is not just about allocating seats—it’s about fair access per person. And by that measure, Bihar’s reservation system, while progressive on paper, still leaves its largest and most disadvantaged population group at a competitive loss.

The system isn’t unfair because it gives “too much” to some—it’s unfair because it doesn’t give proportionately enough to the ones who need it most.

Wednesday, May 7, 2025

Why Private Sector Reservations Are Good for India: Lessons from Global Affirmative Action and the Case for Diversity Hiring

India’s reservation system, rooted in its 1950 Constitution, has been a cornerstone of affirmative action, ensuring representation for historically marginalized groups like Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public sector jobs, education, and politics. However, with the private sector now accounting for over 90% of India’s job growth, extending reservations to this sphere is increasingly vital for social equity and economic progress. This article explores why private sector reservations are beneficial for India, drawing on global examples of affirmative action, equating diversity hiring to a form of reservation, and addressing misconceptions about merit and efficiency.

The Case for Private Sector Reservations in India

India’s private sector has grown exponentially since economic liberalization in 1991, yet marginalized communities remain underrepresented. Studies show that SC/ST households earn Rs 5,000 less per month on average than other groups, reflecting persistent income disparities. Private sector hiring often exhibits biases, with research indicating that candidates with “lower-caste” names are less likely to be shortlisted for jobs despite equivalent qualifications. Reservations in the private sector could address these inequities by ensuring access to opportunities, reducing discrimination, and fostering social inclusion.

Moreover, the public sector’s shrinking job pool—due to privatization and stagnant hiring—limits the impact of existing reservation policies. Extending reservations to private companies, which benefit from government concessions like tax breaks and subsidized land, aligns with the principle of shared social responsibility. By mandating or incentivizing the hiring of marginalized groups, India can bridge caste-based economic gaps, empower disadvantaged communities, and create a more inclusive workforce that reflects its diverse population.

Private sector reservations also have economic benefits. Diverse teams enhance innovation and decision-making by bringing varied perspectives. A 2015 McKinsey study found that companies with greater racial and ethnic diversity outperformed less diverse peers by 15-35% in financial returns. In India, where caste and regional diversity shape consumer markets, inclusive hiring can help firms better understand and serve their customers, boosting competitiveness.

Global Examples of Affirmative Action in the Private Sector

Several countries have implemented affirmative action in the private sector, offering valuable lessons for India:

United States: The U.S. pioneered affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 (1965), which mandates federal contractors to adopt non-discriminatory hiring practices and set goals for employing women and minorities. While not explicit quotas, these policies require proactive recruitment from underrepresented groups, such as internships and outreach programs. The result has been increased representation of Black, Hispanic, and Native American workers in corporate settings, with no evidence of reduced efficiency. For example, tech giants like Google and Microsoft have diversity initiatives that mirror affirmative action, improving workforce representation without compromising performance.
Malaysia: Malaysia’s New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced in 1971, promotes economic inclusion for the Bumiputera (indigenous Malays) through affirmative action in both public and private sectors. Private firms are encouraged to hire Bumiputera employees and allocate shares to Bumiputera investors. This has significantly reduced poverty among Malays, with their share of corporate equity rising from 2% in 1970 to over 20% by 2000. While criticisms exist about elite capture, the policy demonstrates how private sector involvement can drive social equity.
South Africa: Post-apartheid South Africa implemented the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Act, which incentivizes private companies to hire and promote Black South Africans through a scoring system affecting government contracts. Companies with higher B-BBEE scores gain competitive advantages, leading to increased Black representation in corporate leadership. This model shows how incentives, rather than mandates, can encourage private sector participation in affirmative action.
Brazil: Some Brazilian private universities and companies have adopted voluntary quotas for Black and indigenous candidates, often tied to corporate social responsibility. These initiatives have increased access to high-skill jobs for marginalized groups, with firms like Vale reporting improved workplace innovation due to diverse talent pools.

These examples highlight that affirmative action in the private sector can take various forms—quotas, incentives, or diversity goals—tailored to local contexts. India could adopt a hybrid model, combining voluntary diversity targets with incentives like tax benefits for compliant firms.

Diversity Hiring as a Form of Private Sector Reservation

Diversity hiring, increasingly common in global and Indian corporations, is effectively a softer form of reservation. Companies like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, and Unilever India have diversity programs targeting women, people with disabilities, and underrepresented castes. These initiatives involve setting hiring goals, creating inclusive recruitment processes, and training managers to mitigate bias. For instance, Infosys’s diversity council focuses on increasing representation of SC/ST candidates in technical roles, resembling affirmative action without explicit quotas.

Diversity hiring aligns with reservation principles by prioritizing inclusion of marginalized groups while maintaining flexibility. It counters systemic barriers—like biased resume screening or nepotistic networks—that exclude qualified SC/ST/OBC candidates. By casting a wider net, diversity hiring ensures that talent from all backgrounds is tapped, much like reservations aim to do. The success of such programs in Indian firms shows that private sector reservations could build on existing diversity frameworks, making implementation smoother.

Addressing Misconceptions About Reservations

Critics of private sector reservations often argue that they undermine merit, reduce efficiency, and promote reverse discrimination. These misconceptions, rooted in a narrow view of meritocracy, can be debunked:

Misconception: Reservations Reduce Merit
- Reality: Reservations do not bypass qualifications; they ensure access for qualified candidates from marginalized groups who face systemic barriers. A 2018 study on India’s Indian Administrative Service (IAS) found no performance gap between affirmative action hires and merit-based recruits in implementing programs like MGNREGA. High-scoring SC/ST candidates often outperform peers, debunking the notion that reservations compromise quality. Merit is not a fixed trait but a product of opportunity—reservations level the playing field by providing access to education and networks that dominant groups take for granted.
Misconception: Reservations Decrease Efficiency
- Reality: Evidence suggests that diversity enhances efficiency. A study on India’s employment quotas for SCs found that a 1% increase in quota share raised salaried job access for rural SC men by 0.6%, with no negative impact on organizational outcomes. Globally, diverse teams improve problem-solving and innovation, as seen in U.S. firms with affirmative action programs. In India, private firms like HCL have reported higher productivity after adopting diversity initiatives, as varied perspectives drive creative solutions.
Misconception: Reservations Cause Reverse Discrimination
- Reality: Reservations address historical injustices, not create new ones. The majority’s access to jobs remains robust—general category candidates still dominate private sector hiring. Critics often overlook that reservations target systemic exclusion, not individual merit. In the U.S., affirmative action opponents claimed reverse discrimination, but courts have upheld policies like those in Fisher v. University of Texas, recognizing their role in correcting inequities without unduly harming others. In India, capping reservations at 50% (per the Indira Sawhney judgment) ensures balance.
Misconception: Private Sector Should Be Free from Government Interference
- Reality: The private sector operates within a social contract, benefiting from public resources like infrastructure and subsidies. Expecting it to contribute to social justice is reasonable. Malaysia and South Africa show that private firms can align profit motives with affirmative action, gaining competitive advantages through inclusive practices.

Countering the Narrative with Evidence

The fear that reservations dilute quality often ignores the structural inequalities that define “merit.” For instance, elite private universities in India, which lack reservations, remain dominated by upper-caste students, perpetuating exclusion. Conversely, public institutions with reservations have produced SC/ST/OBC graduates who excel in competitive fields like engineering and medicine. The notion that reservations inherently lower standards also ignores that candidates must still meet minimum qualifications, as seen in the IAS, where affirmative action hires perform comparably to others.

Efficiency concerns are similarly overstated. South Africa’s B-BBEE program has not crippled private firms; instead, it has fostered inclusive growth, with companies like Sasol benefiting from diverse leadership. In India, the private sector’s reluctance to hire SC/ST candidates often stems from bias, not a lack of talent. Diversity hiring at firms like Wipro shows that inclusive recruitment enhances, not hinders, performance.

A Path Forward for India

To implement private sector reservations effectively, India could adopt a phased approach:

Incentives Over Mandates: Offer tax breaks or preferential government contracts to firms meeting diversity targets, similar to South Africa’s B-BBEE model.
Skill Development: Pair reservations with training programs to ensure SC/ST/OBC candidates are job-ready, addressing industry concerns about skill gaps.
Transparency and Monitoring: Require firms to report diversity metrics, as in the U.S., to track progress and counter biases.
Periodic Review: Regularly assess reservation policies, as suggested by the Indira Sawhney judgment, to prevent elite capture and ensure benefits reach the most disadvantaged.

Conclusion

Private sector reservations in India are not just a moral imperative but a strategic necessity for inclusive growth. Global examples from the U.S., Malaysia, South Africa, and Brazil demonstrate that affirmative action in the private sector can enhance equity without sacrificing efficiency. Diversity hiring, already practiced by Indian firms, serves as a stepping stone to formalized reservations, proving that inclusion drives innovation and competitiveness. By addressing misconceptions about merit and efficiency with evidence, India can build a private sector that reflects its diversity and uplifts its most marginalized citizens. Embracing reservations is not about lowering standards but about raising opportunities for all, ensuring a stronger, fairer nation.